Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lindor Attacks Record Company Copyright-Pooling

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the avoiding-the-rule-of-inverse-ninjas dept.

The Courts 136

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Back in March, 2006, Marie Lindor called the record companies suing her a collusive cartel, and their joint agreement to pool their copyrights "copyright misuse" (pdf). A year and a half later, the RIAA apparently got nervous about that allegation and made a motion to strike the allegations. Ms. Lindor has struck back, pointing out to the Judge not only that the RIAA's arguments had no legal basis, but also that its brief was completely silent as to any justification for the record companies' copyright-pooling agreement. Such a justification would be necessary for it to pass muster under 'rule of reason' analysis mandated by the US Supreme Court. Ms. Lindor, a home health worker who has never even used a computer, let alone infringed anyone's copyrights with a p2p file sharing program, is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony. She also obtained a ruling that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory might be a wee bit unconstitutional."

cancel ×

136 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

pirst fost! (-1, Offtopic)

gatekeep (122108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606335)

w00t!

Good for her (1)

Aczlan (636310) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606355)

Hope she wins and gets a couple of million from the RIAA (as well as setting a precedent)

I hope ... (5, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606771)

Hope she wins and gets a couple of million from the RIAA (as well as setting a precedent)

I hope she wins and the RIAA members effectively lose the copyrights to every song involved in these suits.

That's the point of the "copyright misuse" claim: Part of the penalty for misuse of a copyright is the loss of the ability to enforce it at all.

750 dollars a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606365)

I can't think of a single song that is "worth" a 10th, nay a 100th of that value.

Can anyone think of one?

Re:750 dollars a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606421)

"Happy Birthday" but thankfully, I think it is in the public domain. :)

Re:750 dollars a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606487)

AOL owns "Happy Birthday"

Re:750 dollars a song (3, Insightful)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606533)

Which is why most restaurants that used to have their employees sing Happy Birthday to patrons celebrating their birthday now have to sing some contrived crapola instead. Another example of how copyrights can seem to live forever and dorks (oh, excuse me "greedy corporations" but dorks works too) try to grab money for something they never should have really owned and certainly didn't come up with.

Re:750 dollars a song (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606643)

Man, I'm sure steamed about that. Restaurant employees can't sing the actual Happy Birthday to customers.

Man, is there any limit to the harm copyrights bring to society?

Meanwhile, back in reality, the most of us would like to see a law passed making it illegal for restaurant employees to burst into any song at all while we are trying to enjoy a meal.

Re:750 dollars a song (2, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606677)

I figure that another reason restaurant chains don't use "Happy Birthday" is so that they can create a custom song that contains nothing but two notes separated by a single semitone. It's their attempt to make it a tiny bit less excruciating to listen to the bellowing of a group of waitstaff with a sum total of zero singing talent.

Re:750 dollars a song (4, Funny)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606783)

"Happy Happy Birthday,
I really hate this song!
But if I do not sing it,
I won't work here for long... Hey!"

Copyright (C) 2007 quantum bit Productions
Redistribution permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license [creativecommons.org] .

Re:750 dollars a song (2, Funny)

GoblinJuice (1090149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606527)

Happy Birthday may be in the PD, but Master Shake [wikipedia.org] 's "Spirit Journey Formation Anniversary [wikipedia.org] " isn't. =)

Deep within the womb of time,
a creature thus be born
The seed of life is united with
the egg of tyranny
Gestates forth from within the womb of life
for three-quarter and nigh a year
The creature thus be born!
The creature thus be formed!
And ye of years...
[Your current age + bells]
Will chime!
When the heavens open up
and drink from the silver cup
The creature thus be born!
And blow the magic horn!
To alert the spirit deep within the cycle of life.
The creature has begun it's journey deep forlorn,
upon this day which he be formed
In the sea of mucus the spirit rides down from the mountain
and unites with the creature in the womb
A holy union, dark mortality, until the dark mortality
breaks the chain of life
The creature thus be born
And every year raineth down the celebratory tears
A celebration of the years
from mere mortal sky

Re:750 dollars a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20608263)

That's pretty close to the SNL skit with Jack Black! http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01kbirthday.phtml [jt.org]

Life imitates art, or vice versa?

Re:750 dollars a song (3, Informative)

semifamous (231316) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606647)

Not yet. It's still copyrighted until 2030. [wikipedia.org]

Re:750 dollars a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606439)

it's probably something along the lines of 20 songs on a $15 CD - $0.75/song

Now, assume 1000 people download it that wouldn't have gotten it otherwise.

Of course, a better assumption would probably max at 50-100, so $37.50-$75.

Re:750 dollars a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606483)

Now, prove 1000 people download it that wouldn't have gotten it otherwise

Fixed that for you.

Re:750 dollars a song (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606441)

I can't think of a single song that is "worth" a 10th, nay a 100th of that value.

I'd pay that to hear a funural march at the RIAA's funeral

-mcgrew [kuro5hin.org]

Re:750 dollars a song (1)

MiharuSenaKanaka (1080135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606477)

I'm not so sure about songs being "worth" a particular value, but I would be more than willing to shell out ten to twenty-five dollars for a CD/DVD recording of a concert that I had been to and particularly enjoyed. (And obviously, wanted to be able to listen to again!) The amount of money something is "worth" is usually related to how much it cost to produce, not how "good" it is. I think that sort of a measure would be more useful in determining how much a song is worth -- but unfortunately, how "good" something is (or, rather, its "quality") is a difficult standard to work with because everyone has a different opinion on the matter; personally I don't like rap very much and wouldn't want to pay more than a few cents per song (two, maybe three) for it if I had to purchase it, but on the other hand, I'm a big fan of folk songs and japanese music, and I would pay upwards of a dollar per song for it if it were easily available to me. So, it really depends on the person's tastes in music.

Re:750 dollars a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606543)

Actually, an item is only "worth" as much as an person is willing to pay for it. Therefore, worth can be considered to be an individual assessment which may (or may not) be valid for any other person.

Re:750 dollars a song (2, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606979)

I can't think of a single song that is "worth" a 10th, nay a 100th of that value.

You aren't paying for the single.

You are paying for your unlicensed and unlimited redistribution of the single through the P2P nets.

Re:750 dollars a song (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607197)

The "unlimited" part isn't established.

You are also paying for being treated like a hardened commercial bootlegger.

That who the original statutory damage amount was targeted at.

Those absurd damage claims are simply the end results of the RIAA
getting to pay to distort the law so that you are conflated with a
Chinese CD/DVD factory.

Let's buy this woman a drink (5, Interesting)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606407)

I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink. They are probably doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now. I don't mean to discount the contributions of organizations such as the EFF (I have, in fact, contributed money in the past), but it's hard to root for a nameless, faceless group like that. This woman is fast becoming an icon for fighting the good fight against the frivilous lawsuits that the RIAA continues to file.

It may be a tad melodramatic to say this (especially now), but I certainly hope that she finds her place in the history books.

Re:Let's buy this woman a drink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606443)

I cant wait for the Lindor Copyright Reform Bill

Re:Let's buy this woman a drink (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606521)

I cant wait for the Lindor Copyright Reform Bill

Knowing Congress, the actual text of the bill would make the RIAA's tactics legal.

DON'T PUT THE VAGINA ON A PEDESTAL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606535)

Whether it is stealing audio-visual content, or illegally lifting code from another OS and putting it in Linux, we can always count on the Slashdot drones to condonne every type of thievery.

STOP STEALING EVERYTHING!

Re:DON'T PUT THE VAGINA ON A PEDESTAL (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606565)

We can also always count on the random A.C. who doesn't have even a smidgen of understanding to carry on about STEALING. There's this thing called "the Big Picture" which you are apparently failing to see. You had best understand that both sides in this conflict have rights under the law, but only one side is interested in removing the other side's rights ... permanently.

Re:DON'T PUT THE VAGINA ON A PEDESTAL (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606641)

We can also always count on the random A.C. who doesn't have even a smidgen of understanding to carry on about STEALING. There's this thing called "the Big Picture" which you are apparently failing to see. You had best understand that both sides in this conflict have rights under the law, but only one side is interested in removing the other side's rights ... permanently.
I've come to the conclusion that the Anonymous Coward posts of that nature on /. are from an RIAA shill or troll. They're totally offtopic, and neither you nor I nor anyone we know has ever met anyone in the real world who believes such nonsense.

Re:DON'T PUT THE VAGINA ON A PEDESTAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20607287)

You talk about the big picture, yet drag irrelivant information to make your point. Theft and copyright ingringement are diferent and one is actually relevant to this case.

Digital Audio Tape machines (1)

hopeless case (49791) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607351)

I know what you mean about one side trying to permanently remove the rights of the other.

I still can't believe the RIAA successfully lobbied congress to prevent Americans from being able to purchase Digitial Audio Tape machines in the 1980s. The sheer gall of using congress to shut down entire technologies just because you think they threaten a business model you've become accustomed to making a killing at.

Having our rights curtailing like that really stings. The RIAA really has it coming this time.

Re:Digital Audio Tape machines (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608549)

Don't forget the fortunately unsuccessful attempt by the MPAA to have the Video Cassette Recorder ruled a contraband technology, and the legal battles both they and the RIAA have fought all down the line as new technologies are brought to market. They have the gall to talk about theft, when they've stolen far, far more from us and are trying to take more. There needs to be a certain balance, a balance that the Founders struck so well that it stood up for two hundred years. These people have to know what they're doing, the damage they're causing: the fact that the persist anyway indicates that they are the ones who are unbalanced.

Of course, realistically it's too much to expect attack lawyers funded by non-U.S. corporations to have any respect for the U.S. legal system or its citizens. Personally, the behavior of the RIAA member companies in this regard should have resulted in an international incident. I mean, if an American corporation went overseas somewhere, and funded a bunch of lawyers to begin suing the pants of the locals, you can bet there'd be an uproar.

Re:DON'T PUT THE VAGINA ON A PEDESTAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606591)

Seth, is that you? You still think SCO's code is in Linux? And you call /. people drones? Just look in the mirror. You will see a drone up close and personal.

Re:DON'T PUT THE VAGINA ON A PEDESTAL (1)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607193)

Several years ago, a record company exec made a really good point. "File Sharing" isn't really "sharing" because when you share something with someone, you don't have it anymore.

But here's the obvious next logical step (which said executive of course failed to make): File sharing isn't really "stealing" either, because when you steal something from someone, they don't have it anymore.

File sharing is a violation of copyright. It's not sharing, it's not stealing, it's a copyright violation. And when it's put that way, if that doesn't sound as serious as stealing, maybe the people who make these ridiculous laws ought to take that into consideration.

Re:DON'T PUT THE VAGINA ON A PEDESTAL (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609219)

Hmmm.

I always wondered what happened to my recipe for making apple pie after I shared it with a friend.

I have a vague memory of telling someone how to program a VCR too-- now i realize when I shared those instructions with them, I forgot them myself.

It's amazing we can share any knowledge at all! I am sure one person.. somewhere in the world.. knows how we do it.

Re:Let's buy this woman a drink (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606581)

I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink. They are probably doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now. I don't mean to discount the contributions of organizations such as the EFF (I have, in fact, contributed money in the past), but it's hard to root for a nameless, faceless group like that. This woman is fast becoming an icon for fighting the good fight against the frivilous lawsuits that the RIAA continues to file. It may be a tad melodramatic to say this (especially now), but I certainly hope that she finds her place in the history books.
Thanks, RESPAWN.

I don't know about her, but I could really use one about now.

Re:Let's buy this woman a drink (2, Insightful)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606679)

Barring a drink, how can we help the campaign financially? I know that there have been ways stated previously, but I forget. I've already made my donation to the EFF, but is there a fund or something to keep you and Ms. Lindor on the RIAA's backs?

I can only do like $20, but if half of the registered /. users contributed $5 each, that gives you $2.5M to work with and keep flinging the RIAA's poop back at them. A little from a lot can go a long way.

Re:Let's buy this woman a drink (1)

Merk (25521) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607733)

Hey NYCL, is it really Ms. Lindor who is "pointing out to the Judge not only that the RIAA's arguments had no legal basis, but also that its brief was completely silent as to any justification for the record companies' copyright-pooling agreement" etc.? Or is it you (collectively) as her attorneys who are doing all these things, and she's encouraging you and signing off on them?

I'd be really impressed if a "home health worker who has never even used a computer" was able to such an amazing job of fighting off the RIAA, but if it really is you guys, on her behalf, who are fighting the good fight and coming up with these legal maneuvers, you deserve some credit too. How involved is she in her own defense? Is she now using a computer, looking up case law, etc. or is she merely encouraging you to fight as vigorously as you can?

Better yet, (2, Interesting)

vlad_petric (94134) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606617)

Let's donate some money to her defense fund ... Too bad she doesn't have a website for that.

Re:Better yet, (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606683)

Let's donate some money to her defense fund ... Too bad she doesn't have a website for that.
If you send a check to Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, As Attorneys for Marie Lindor" we will deposit it in our escrow account and apply it to Ms. Lindor's account. I can assure you she will warmly appreciate it. Our mailing address is: Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, 110 E. 42 St., New York, NY 10017, Att: Ray Beckerman

Thanks

Re:Better yet, (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606715)

Set up a paypal account so it is easy for folks to help.

Re:Better yet, (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606839)

Set up a paypal account so it is easy for folks to help.
I'll see if it's doable.

Re:Better yet, (0, Flamebait)

drspliff (652992) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607231)

I've already set one up, a certain percentage* will be donated to the fund. Feel free to e-mail me for details on how you can donate.

* My administration costs are estimated at 95% of total donated.

Re:Better yet, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20607531)

Idiot.

Re:Better yet, (1)

drspliff (652992) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607721)

ner ner ner, scardie cat.

hmm, yeah that does prove your point...

Re:Better yet, (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606947)

Bad idea. He'd have to bill her for his time doing that.

Re:Better yet, (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608097)

Done. [slashdot.org]

Re:Better yet, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20609745)

Paypal has a limit of $500/mo for personal accounts. I think u need a business account or something similar. Otherwise, they'll charge some amount for each transaction over the $500.

Re:Better yet, (1)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606857)

In the grand scheme of things, what I can contribute is very little, but you will receive a check from me. Also, don't be surprised if you find a modest bottle of scotch deliverd to that address as soon as I figure out the best way to have one legally delivered.

That said... I'm sure this has been discussed before, but are there any legal reasons that you couldn't set up a website and/or Paypal account to accept further contributions? I'm sure that myself and Vlad Petric aren't the only /.'ers willing to contribute to the cause.

PayPal Account for Ms. Lindor's Legal Defense (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607011)

In the grand scheme of things, what I can contribute is very little, but you will receive a check from me. Also, don't be surprised if you find a modest bottle of scotch deliverd to that address as soon as I figure out the best way to have one legally delivered. That said... I'm sure this has been discussed before, but are there any legal reasons that you couldn't set up a website and/or Paypal account to accept further contributions? I'm sure that myself and Vlad Petric aren't the only /.'ers willing to contribute to the cause.
Good news. A family friend of Ms. Lindor's will be setting up a PayPal account for contributions to help her defray the costs of defending herself from the RIAA. Will post the information as soon as the account is set up. I will post the information here and on Recording Industry vs. The People [blogspot.com] .

Meanwhile, about that drink......

Re:PayPal Account for Ms. Lindor's Legal Defense (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608001)

PayPal account has been set up [slashdot.org] .

Re:Better yet, (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608045)

PayPal account has been set up [slashdot.org] .

Moderators, I'm sorry if this is "redundant" but it's important that I get the message out to those who want to assist this poor woman.

Re:Better yet, (1)

BalanceOfJudgement (962905) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608095)

If you send a check to Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, As Attorneys for Marie Lindor" we will deposit it in our escrow account and apply it to Ms. Lindor's account. I can assure you she will warmly appreciate it. Our mailing address is: Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, 110 E. 42 St., New York, NY 10017, Att: Ray Beckerman


Ray - she'll be receiving a check from me (or PayPal, if you manage it). I don't have much but you guys deserve the best society can heap upon you for what you're doing.

Saying 'Thank You' doesn't even begin to cover it.

Re:Better yet, (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609187)

Ray - she'll be receiving a check from me (or PayPal, if you manage it). I don't have much but you guys deserve the best society can heap upon you for what you're doing. Saying 'Thank You' doesn't even begin to cover it.
. Thanks, Balance. Much appreciated. PayPal account is now set up [blogspot.com]

Re:Better yet, (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609489)

Will it be possible to get some sort of status on how much money was generated from this in the future or is that Attorney client privilege?

Sent some cash.. hope it helps.

Re:Let's buy this woman a drink (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606681)

I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink.

No can do. We'd be an illegal cartel of lawsuit targets.

Really? (3, Interesting)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606415)

The RIAA bought and paid for elected representatives. Those representatives created laws which allow the RIAA to metaphorically rape anybody who has stepped out of line causing them the loss of any amount of potential revenue. The courts need to respect the laws that our corrupt politicians have put on the books.

If you can't hire corrupt politicians to make a mockery of the constitution at the expense of normal citizens then what can you do?

It should be as easy to buy judges as it is to buy congressmen.

Re:Really? (1)

middlemen (765373) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606507)

How is the above post flamebait !? It seems like a good idea for a satirical movie on the RIAA, which ironically could be released by the MPAA themselves, preventing the public to watch it...

$750 per song!?!! (1)

bostons1337 (1025584) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606461)

"She also obtained a ruling that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory might be a wee bit unconstitutional." I wonder how they break down the $750 per song file? $0.99 Actual Price of Song $749 Time and Labor for RIAA to prosecute Being ripped off by your own government PRICELESS :) For Everything Else There's Mastercard

Ha-ha, RIAA (5, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606495)

The playground bully getting their ass kicked by a girl. lol.

Re:Ha-ha, RIAA (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606557)

The playground bully getting their ass kicked by a girl. lol.
Playground bullies.

Boy have you got that right.

If RIAA is found to be a cartel (1)

Enlarged to Show Tex (911413) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606519)

One of their own, Dr Dre, will have said it best: "We have your...record company surrounded. Put down the candy and let the little boy go."

Re:If RIAA is found to be a cartel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20607535)

He was talking specifically to Eazy-E, you retard.

Any legal costs fund for her? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606547)

Her arguements seem like the most systematic, potentially successful, and logical takedown of the riaa's tactics I've yet seen. Is there a legal fund we could donate to? Seems like it'd be some money well spent.

RE: Let's buy that woman a drink (1)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606549)

Better make that a non-alcoholic drink, because I can guarantee you the state will prosecute her just as maliciously as the RIAA has.

What nerve! (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606561)

I say! She's challenging the bedrock of modern law! It's all written and owned by the cartels, corporations, rich and poweful and they've earned it! They have worked very hard and at no little expsense to get those laws, buying representatives, influencing judge selections and so forth. How dare the little ordinary person challenge this status! This almost made the monocle pop right out of my eye! I shall have to see what I can do to prevent these common rabble from believing they were hah! created equal.

Re:What nerve! (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606685)

So, you're saying we're all created equal, just some more equal than others Mr. Pigg?

Ouch!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606563)

8===O ((
      8==((
        8=((

Ass Rape!

never used a computer?? (2, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606573)

a home health worker who has never even used a computer

Uhh... WHAT??

Re:never used a computer?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606635)

What's the problem?

Re:never used a computer?? (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606743)

a home health worker who has never even used a computer
Uhh... WHAT??
Yup.

Believe it or not, the RIAA has sued as an 'online media distributor' one of the only people I have never met who has never used a computer. She has never even turned one on. The only thing she has ever done with a computer is to dust around one sometimes.

That should tell you the kind of "human beings" I am litigating against.

Re:never used a computer?? (1)

patrixmyth (167599) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607227)

I wholeheartedly support Ms. Lindor's efforts and those of her attorneys. I also think the collusion argument is fantastic, but in the interest of fairness I think one aspect of this is worth pointing out. I don't think the "Never Used a Computer" angle is quite as strong an argument as it is being made out to be. Reading into the various articles a bit, it seems at least possible that copyright infringement was taking place by a member of her family, and its not that far a logical stretch that she could be held accountable for the actions taking place within her home by members of her family, with her implicit support and acceptance. Not sure about legal aspects, and admit logical and legal don't always coincide, but the story headline is just a bit misleading in this aspect.

Re:never used a computer?? (1)

2bitcomputers (864663) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607621)

Thats fine. Let them try to sue her children then. It worked SO well the last time they tried that stunt.

Re:never used a computer?? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606773)

I haven't ever used a computer, too.

expert advice (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606701)

"Ms. Lindor, a home health worker who has never even used a computer, let alone infringed anyone's copyrights with a p2p file sharing program, is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony."

Considering how all the links from this particular quote are to /. articles, I have to say I had no idea that most /.ers are such excellent lawyers.

Re:expert advice (1)

cez (539085) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606893)

"is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony."

Considering how all the links from this particular quote are to /. articles, I have to say I had no idea that most /.ers are such excellent lawyers.


lol... well for starters, the "RIAA's expert testimony" was not given by lawyers, and regardless if I would hardly call them experts in their field of law, but by so called Computer / Network experts of the RIAA.


Those you will find in abundance here (sans RIAA assmunching part) and did help a bit I believe... you can ask Mr. Beckman about that one though...

Re:expert advice (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607163)

"is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony."
Considering how all the links from this particular quote are to /. articles, I have to say I had no idea that most /.ers are such excellent lawyers.
lol... well for starters, the "RIAA's expert testimony" was not given by lawyers, and regardless if I would hardly call them experts in their field of law, but by so called Computer / Network experts of the RIAA.
Actually the Slashdot community was extremely helpful in helping to both formulate questions for the expert, and in reviewing the transcript of his testimony.

It was not legal, but technical, input we were looking for.

As for Slashdotters being lawyers, as I said when I was interviewed in September, 2006, on Slashdot, I learned a valuable lesson then. One needs to look beyond the statutes and the cases for the law; one also needs to look at Slashdot. If something is modded +5 on Slashdot, it must be the law as well, even if neither Congress nor the Courts have recognized it yet.

:)

Re:expert advice (2, Funny)

nairnr (314138) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607801)

Yeah, just as long as you aren't looking for the +5 Funny. Sure as hell wouldn't want those considered as law :-)

Re:expert advice (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608213)

One needs to look beyond the statutes and the cases for the law; one also needs to look at Slashdot.

I can't tell how tongue-in-cheek you're being, but I do think that this is right, that in some ways the issues really aren't about the exact statutes. However the laws are worded, copyrights simply weren't intended as a means for large corporations to bully individual viewers of that copyrighted material.

But look at me, I guess I'm preaching to the choir. IANAL, but of course I know that lawyers can't really rely on "I know it's the law, but it's unjust!" Either way, you seem to be doing a good job here, and getting advice from this site seems like a very clever (however unconventional) move.

Can I ask, what do you think the couple most useful pieces of information you got from Slashdot were? What, to you, was the most interesting things you learned?

Re:expert advice (2, Informative)

bravo369 (853579) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608497)

I read through most of the transcript of the Q/A with the RIAA expert. He pretty much agreed with the defendant's stance. I don't know if you can do this in a trial but I would try to make sure those answers are summarized on a 1-2 page document to make sure the judge sees the answers. No he did not see any filesharing SW on the pc, could not verify the MAC address, Could not verify how many PC's were behind the router, whether wireless was used...and most damaging that there are COUNTLESS ways to spoof an IP address. that alone BY THEIR EXPERT!!!...should get this lawsuit thrown out with the RIAA forced to pay lawyer fees and laughed out of court.

Re:expert advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20607043)

NewYorkCountryLawyer is her lawyer. He came here asking for technical suggestions. I'm sure he only presented the ones with legal merit.

wow, a concise filing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20606753)

wow, that amended filing answer was concise and elegant.

after she wins this (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606767)

all of those who were ever sued by the riaa: turn around and sue the riaa in class action for malicious and frivolous prosecution

some group of lawyers can spearhead the process. it doesn't require grassroots action. if lawyers can smell blood in the water over cigarettes, asbestos, etc., they can easily see the dollar signs they can bleed the riaa for here too, depending on the precedents this glorious woman sets

make them give back every $ they ever took and then some

bleed the fuckers dry

teach them you can't make up for the creeping irrelevancy of an anachronistic business model by sending your legal attack dogs to terrify little people

a toast, to this courageous woman and the torpedoing of the uss riaa

all hands abandon ship

Re:after she wins this (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607107)

I think the pirates are looking forward to setting sail, not abandoning ship.

Soap box.. (5, Insightful)

aero2600-5 (797736) | more than 6 years ago | (#20606879)

It was only a matter of time before someone managed to use Slashdot for it's ability to harness ideas and viewpoints. Usually it's just spitting into the wind with no one making any effort to record the good ideas that do pop up.

Our friend, the NewYorkCountryLawyer, has not only made Slashdot his personal soap box, what the Russians would call the 'Father of all soapboxes', but he has managed to harness all the good ideas generated from several Slashdot stories and put them to good use. Not only has he put these ideas to his own personal good use, he's doing good for society as a whole, and sticking it to the RIAA in the process.

Sir, I tip my hat to you. Keep up the good work.

Aero

Hear! Hear! (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607475)

Well said. It should happen more often.

So musicians can not form unions (0, Troll)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607301)

To defend their rights together and gain bargaining power?

Re:So musicians can not form unions (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607827)

To defend their rights together and gain bargaining power?
The RIAA [riaa.com] is not a musician's union. They are an association of record labels. Hence the name Recording Industry Assocation of America.

You're probably thinking of ASCAP [ascap.com] and BMI [bmi.com] , which are copyright clearinghouses for songwriters and publishers. Even so, they aren't a musician's union, either.

Re:So musicians can not form unions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20608469)

Right on. There is a professional musician's union, but it's pretty much dominated by session players who don't really get royalties.

As a card carrying member of a union (Teamsters) and a semi-professional musician in Chicago, I'll say the RIAA doesn't do shit for me.

Re:So musicians can not form unions (1)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609703)

The RIAA is not a musician's union. They are an association of record labels.

This distinction is too detailed and irrelevant — even if they were a musician's union, they would still be attacked for copyright pooling. The article — and most of the discussion — are raging against the very concept of the marketplace participants uniting to further their interests.

America's perception of this concept is hypocritical. When the entities are people, we tend to nod in approval (even if they are Teamsters scum), but when they are businesses, we hate them (even if they are artists, such as Metallica [answers.com] ).

In my opinion, all such unions should be monitored with suspicion and anti-trust laws should be applied vigilantly against both businesses and people agreeing (conspiring) to raise their prices.

That record companies are being blasted here for merely pooling their copyright interests together to reduce the infamously high costs of litigation, while various union scum (UPS vs. Teamsters, NYC vs. the union of MTA employees) are getting sympathy in their racketeering, is an example of dual standard.

This is getting funnier by the minute... (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607353)

What part of "sinking ship" does the lawyers and/for the RIAA not quite understand???

You'd think that by now they'd realize that the fudge they were pushing would eventually catch up to them. This lady obviously either has some serious smarts, or has some very savvy counsel with her and I'd be surprised if there isn't someone in Washington helping this by looking up things at the Supreme courts too!

Eventually this will get overturned, and the floodgates will open to all involved with the RIAA and many of the record companies. What do you think their defense will be to the courts???

Re:This is getting funnier by the minute... (1)

grilled_ch33z (1140073) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607783)

You think the lawyers care if the RIAA wins? I'm pretty sure they get paid either way.

Re:This is getting funnier by the minute... (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609449)

Actually;

Your absolutely right. They get A LOT OF CASH whether or not anyone wins. This is another folly that someday someone will figure out a way to fix.

Who's laughing now? (2, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607895)

What part of "sinking ship" does the lawyers and/for the RIAA not quite understand???
I think they understand it perfectly well. That however does not prevent them from milking it for everything it's worth.

PayPal Account for Ms. Lindor set up (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20607923)

OK folks, I am pleased to announce that the PayPal account for Ms. Lindor's legal defense has been set up.

The email address is:

wraymond@hotmail.com

Re:PayPal Account for Ms. Lindor set up (1)

BalanceOfJudgement (962905) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608193)

Thanks for the info.

I think I'll stick with mailing a check though, because I want to include a short note thanking you all for what you're doing. She should know she's not alone.

Re:PayPal Account for Ms. Lindor set up (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609535)

I already posted this on an above comment but wanted to make sure you see it since i'm sure there are a lot of replies to sort through.

Will we be able to know how much money has been generated or will this be attorney client privilege?

Sent some money.. hope it helps.

Re:PayPal Account for Ms. Lindor set up (1)

NathanWoodruff (966362) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609587)

Dear Nathan Woodruff,

Your payment for $10.00 USD to wraymond@hotmail.com has been sent.

Payment Details

Amount: $10.00 USD

Transaction ID: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Go Get them.

Message:
Thanks for your hard work.

Nathan

and they haven't just dropped this case because .. (1)

kwandar (733439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20608813)

What's wrong with the RIAA? They don't typically want to pursue litigated cases to begin with, and they are now being hit with allegations that if nothing else, would potentially be a very expensive discovery process for their clients. Even the smallest discovery (and this is potentially much larger than small) for documents and interrogatories would be expensive in terms of executive time and pulling the information together, whether or not they are right. Then when you see the gaping holes in the RIAA's legal filings to strike, you almost have to question the competency of their counsel. That or the RIAA is pressing on in spite of legal opinion to the contrary? This is a losing proposition, even if they are right, and I'd be running to get out of this. So .... why aren't they?

RIAA Lottery Sometimes you win and .... (2, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20609025)

Such a justification would be necessary for it to pass muster under 'rule of reason' analysis mandated by the US Supreme Court.

The RIAA has goofed big time on this one. What they were doing was marginal at best. Now with the litigation campaign and the examination of the law as a result is starting to bring down the house of cards. I think they goofed on the litigation campaign in hopes everyone would roll over and play dead. I don't think they expected a fight with intelligent people who could see the flaws in their assertions.

They played the lottery trying to get shady practices cemented as standard operating practices. They played the gamble that the defendants would fold as the cheap option. They gambled and stand a good chance of getting copyright law handed to them on a platter with shady practices exposed as a big RICO problem.

epK!. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20609259)

another cunting the fruitlees do and doing what we ge7 there with Usenet is roughly
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>